and all error, bitter to the taste; and that
its fruition ends in terrible retribution.
Now, let us inquire into the origin of the
system in this country.
It was generally admitted by the framers
of the Constitution that the institution should
be tolerated, and tolerated only, and the hope
both expressed and implied was that the day
would soon come when the slaves would he
liberated throughout the land. It is not my
purpose here to go into a detail statement of
the views entertained by the sages of that
day. The record is open to all. The views
of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry,
Randolph, Jay, Hamilton, &c., were ably
alluded to, by the gentleman from Caroline
(Mr. Todd,) and by my colleague (Mr. Scott.)
I had intended to do so, but will not delay
the Convention by any extracts from their
speeches or writings.
The framers of our Constitution could not
as a body utter the word "slave" as connect-
ed with the American Government, and the
word does not appear in that instrument.
How could they do it? they who in 1776
had given voice to the immortal expression :
''We hold these truths to be self evident,"
&c. Every schoolboy knows it by heart,
and I need not repeat it. How could they
doit? they who sat under the dome which
contained it, and heard the tolling of that
bell upon whose rim it is written, "Proclaim
liberty throughout the land to all the inhab-
itants thereof?"
I do not deny the fact that the institution
was recognized by the Constitution, but I do
say that it was done indirectly and not bold-
ly nor in the manner generally adopted by
those celebrated men in making their sonor-
ous announcements to the world.
So then the institution became one of the
fixed institutions of the country, and from
that day to this it has been one of the principal
causes of trouble to the nation. From that
day to this there have been abolitionists.
From that day to this it has been securing
power and grasping for more, until its tire-
less devotees, (justifying by their demands the
adage that " whom the gods would destroy
they first make mad,") are represented here
to-day with us attending its funeral in Mary-
land .
It has been claimed, with some bitterness,
by the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Jones)
that the abolitionists are the cause of all our
troubles. He speaks of an abolitionist as
though he were a sinner. The gentleman
cannot mention the day since slavery existed
that there were no abolitionists. Let me ask
the gentleman, has not a man a right to be
opposed to slavery? And being opposed,
has lie not the right to express his opposi-
tion? No institution can live that will not
withstand and survive discussion, especially
in America.
The first authoritative expression of oppo- |
sition to it was in 1794, when "it was en-
acted that no person in the United States
should fit out any vessel there for the pur-
pose of carrying on any traffic in slaves to
any foreign country, or for procuring from
any foreign country the inhabitants thereof
to be disposed of as slaves." In 1800 it was
enacted that it should be unlawful for any
citizen of the United States to have any pro-
perty in any vessel employed in transporting
slaves from one foreign country lo another,
or to serve on board any vessel so employed.
Any of the commissioned vessels of the United
States were authorized to seize and take any
vessel employed in the slave trade, to bepro-
ceeded against in any of the circuit or dis-
trict courts, and to be condemned for the use
of the officers and crew of the vessel making
the capture, in 1807 it was enacted that
after the 1st of January, 1808, it should not be
lawful to bring into the United States, or
the territories thereof, from any foreign
place, any negro, mulatto, or person of color
with intent to hold or sell him as a slave;
and heavy penalties are imposed on the vio-
lators of these acts, and others of similar im-
port. in 1820 it was enacted that if any
citizen of the United States belonging to the
company of any foreign vessel engaged in the
slave trade, or any person whatever belong-
ing to the company of any vessel owned in
whole or in part by, or navigated for any citi-
zen of the United States, should land on any
foreign shore to seize any negro or mulatto,
not held lo service by the laws of either of
the States or Territories of the United States,
with intent to make him a slave, or should
decoy or forcibly carry off such negro or
mulatto, or receive him on board any such
vessel, with the intent expressed, he should
be adjudged a pirate, and, on conviction,
should suffer death. The same penalty was
extended to those of the ship's company who
should aid in confining such negro or mulat-
to on board of such vessel, or transfer him on
the sea or tide waters to any other ship or ves-
sel, or land him with intent to sell, or having
previously sold him.
Thus, in 1820, the slave trade was declared
to be piracy.
Now, I wish to notice some views frequent-
ly expressed here to this effect, that the North
sustained the slave trade, and that even in
later times the slave trade has been carried
on by Northern money in Northern ships.
While I do not see what bearing this tact
has upon the question I wish to state my
ground. I do not deny the fact that there
have always been plenty of slaveholders in
spirit in the North. I might just as well
deny the well known fact that there is a large
minority of slaveholders in spirit there to-day,
and that they are unarmed (therefore the
baser) rebels to-day at heart. I assure the
gentleman that I am not oblivious of copper-
heads, nor of the venom of their bite, nor of |
